DRAFT United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Montana State Office United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Northern Region March 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED COOKE CITY AREA MINERAL WITHDRAWAL BL.W LIBRARY BLDG 50, ST-15GA Q FEDfcnMAi.8 ^cw -H *8 A { SDK P.O. 25047 The Bureau of Land Management is responsibleforthe stewardshipofourpublic lands. It iscommitted to manage, protect, and improvethese lands in a mannertoservethe needsofthe American peoplefor all times. Management is based on the principles of multiple use and sustained yield of our nation's resourceswithinaframeworkofenvironmental responsibilityandscientifictechnology. Theseresources includerecreation; rangelands;timber; minerals;watershed;fishandwildlife;wilderness;air;andscenic, scientific, and cultural values. TheUnitedStates DepartmentofAgriculture(USDA) ForestServiceisadiverseorganizationcommitted toequal opportunity in employmentand programdelivery. USDA prohibitsdiscrimination on the basisof race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political affiliation and familial status. Persons believing they have been discriminated against should contact the Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250, or call 202-720-7327 (voice), or 202-720-1127 (TDD). BLM/MT/PL-97/004+1430 Coverphoto: Republic Mountain, Gallatin NationalForest, with Cooke Cityin the foreground. DRAFT . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED COOKE CITY AREA MINERAL WITHDRAWAL March 1997 Prepared by U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Montana State Office and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Northern Region MaAck 1997 Date MoacU 1997 Hal Salwasser, Regional Forester Date Forest Service COOKE CITY AREA MINERAL WITHDRAWAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ABSTRACT Lead Agencies: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Department of the Interior; and Forest Service (FS), U.S. Department ofAgriculture ProposedAction: Towithdrawfrommineral entryfederal locatable mineralson upto22,000acresnearCooke City in Park County, Montana. Federal hardrock minerals managed as leaseable minerals, and minerals acquired by the United States would also be withdrawn. The withdrawal would be subject to review after 20 years. Abstract: This EIS analyzes the environmental consequences oftwo alternatives, i.e. a proposed mineral withdrawal and no mineral withdrawal (No Action). The proposed withdrawal of federal locatable minerals would not allow new mining claimstobefiledonfederallands. Unpatentedminingclaimswithvalidexistingrightsandprivatelandswouldnotbeaffected. The proposed mineral withdrawal would apply to minerals acquired in the future by the federal government. The proposed mineral withdrawal would also apply to any leasable hardrock minerals that are acquired by the federal government by purchase ordonation. The Gallatin and the Custer National Forest Plans would be amended as needed to be consistent with the terms and conditions ofa mineral withdrawal. Underthe “No Action” alternative, federal lands would not be withdrawn from mineral location and entry, i.e., federal lands would be open and available for mineral location and entry under the mining law. This alternative would continue the managementthatexistedpriortoSeptember 1995 when the study areawasclosedtolocatingnew miningclaimsforatwo- 1, year study period known as a segregation. The Custer and Gallatin Forest Plans would not be amended regarding mineral location, entry, or recreational mining. BLM Following the publication of the final EIS, the State Director with Concurrence of the Regional Forester, Northern Region, will submitarecommendation tothe SecretaryoftheInteriorconcerning amineralwithdrawal. TheSecretaryofthe Interior will decide what lands to withdraw, ifany, and for how long. A 45 day comment period will be provided for public review ofthis draft EIS. Comments orquestions should be addressed toJohn Thompson orLarry Timchak, CCAM, P.O. Box 36800, Billings, MT 59107-6800. A phone number where they can be reached is (406) 255-0322. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION I 1 INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND 1 GENERAL LOCATION AND GEOGRAPHIC SETTING : 1 PROPOSED ACTION 3 PURPOSE AND NEED 3 NWM Relationship of Mineral Withdrawal to the Agreement 3 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS 5 DECISIONS TO BE MADE 5 Decisions Beyond the Scope ofthis Analysis 5 ISSUES AND CONCERNS 6 Public Involvement 6 Issues 6 chapter: alternatives 9 INTRODUCTION 9 ALTERNATIVES STUDIED IN DETAIL 9 Alternative A: No Mineral Withdrawal (No Action) 9 Alternative B: Proposed Mineral Withdrawal 14 Management Common to All Alternatives 17 Comparison ofAlternatives 17 Preferred Alternative 17 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY 17 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS 29 SURFACE AND GROUND WATER, WETLANDS, AND FLOODPLAINS 30 Water Quantity 32 Affected Environment 32 Environmental Effects 33 Legal Availability ofWater 34 Affected Environment 34 Environmental Effects 35 Surface Water Quality 37 Affected Environment 37 Environmental Effects 40 Wetlands and Floodplains 44 Affected Environment 44 Environmental Effects 45 Conclusion 47 AQUATIC RESOURCES 48 Affected Environment 48 Environmental Effects 56 Conclusion 63 RECREATION, SCENIC, AND SPECIAL AREAS INCLUDING YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK 64 Recreation 65 Affected Environment 66 Environmental Effects 70 Conclusion 75 i 8 Scenic Integrity 75 Affected Environment 76 Environmental Effects 76 Conclusion 83 Yellowstone National Park 84 Affected Environment 84 Environmental Effects 86 Conclusion 89 Wilderness 89 Affected Environment 90 Environmental Effects 90 Conclusion 92 Inventoried Roadless Areas 92 Affected Environment 93 Environmental Effects 95 Conclusion 97 Wild and Scenic Rivers 98 Affected Environment 98 Environmental Effects 100 Conclusion 103 Air Quality 104 Affected Environment 104 Environmental Effects 104 Conclusion 105 LAND USE 105 Geological Resources 106 Affected Environment 106 Environmental Effects Ill Private Lands and Unpatented Mining Claims 16 1 Affected Environment 16 1 Environmental Effects 1 1 Forest Plan Consistency 121 Affected Environment 121 Environmental Effects 123 ECONOMICS 124 Employment and Income 126 Affected Environment 126 Environmental Effects 126 Economic Resiliency 128 Affected Environment 128 Environmental Effects 129 Government Finances 131 Affected Environment 131 Environmental Effects 132 Mitigation ofEffects 136 SOCIAL 137 Population 138 Affected Environment 138 Environmental Effects 139 : Quality ofLife 140 Affected Environment 140 Environmental Effects 143 ii 11111 Community Services and Infrastructure 145 Affected Environment 145 Environmental Effects 147 Housing 148 Affected Environment 148 Environmental Effects 148 Conclusion 149 CULTURAL RESOURCES 150 Affected Environment 150 Environmental Effects 155 Conclusion 158 WILDLIFE AND SENSITIVE PLANTS 159 USFS Management Indicator Species 159 Threatened and Endangered Species 159 Grizzly Bear 160 Gray Wolf 165 Bald Eagle 166 Peregrine Falcon 167 USFS Northern Region R- Sensitive Species 167 ( 1) Wolverine 167 Lynx 168 USFS Northern Region Sensitive Plants 169 Other USFS Management Indicator Species or Identified Sub-Issues 171 Moose 7 1 Mule Deer, Elk 173 Bighorn Sheep 174 Mountain Goat 76 1 Bison 178 Conclusion 178 REQUIRED DISCLOSURES 179 CHAPTER 4 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 8 1 EXTERNAL- GENERAL PUBLIC 181 EXTERNAL- ELECTED OFFICIALS, AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES 183 INTERNAL- CO-LEAD AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES 84 1 CHRONOLOGY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES (AGENCIES AND GENERAL PUBLIC) 85 .... 1 DISTRIBUTION AND REVIEW OF THIS DRAFT EIS 187 APPENDICES A FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES A-l B FORECAST FOR FUTURE MINERAL ACTIVITY B- C SUMMARY OF ASSUMPTIONS C-l D LANDSCAPE, SOILS, AND VEGETATION D-l E BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT E- F USFS MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES F- GLOSSARY G-l REFERENCES R-l 2 11 LIST OF MAPS Map 1-1 General Vicinity ofthe Proposed Cooke City Area Mineral Withdrawal 2 Map 1-2 National Forest Lands Proposed for Mineral Withdrawal 4 NWM Map 2-1 Alternative A: No Mineral Withdrawal, Scenario A- Agreement Not Implemented 1: NWM 1 Map 2-2 Alternative A: No Mineral Withdrawal, Scenario A-2: Agreement Implemented 15 NWM Map 2-3 Alternative B: Mineral Withdrawal Implemented, Scenario B-l: Agreement Not Implemented 16 NWM Map 2-4 Alternative B: Mineral Withdrawal Implemented, Scenario B-2: Agreement Implemented 18 Map 3-1 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S 31 Map 3-2 PH Levels in Area Streams 39 Map 3-3 Fish Habitat Conditions 49 Map 3-4 Conditions ofBiotic Community 54 Map 3-5 Recreation Features 68 Map 3-6 Highways and Access Roads 73 Map 3-7 Recreation Opportunity Settings and Scenic Integrity Levels 79 Map 3-8 Visual Quality Objectives 80 Map 3-9 Roadless Areas 94 Map 3-10 Wild and Scenic Rivers in Vicinity 99 Map 3-1 Mineral Development Potential 109 1 Map 3-12 Reclamation Potential 12 1 Map 3-13 Land Status 117 Map 3-14 Effects of Proposed Mineral Withdrawal on New World Mine Tailings Impoundment Options 120 Map 3-15 Forest Plan Management Areas 122 Map 3-16 Sites Important to the Integrity ofthe New World Historic District 151 Map 3-17 Grizzly Bear Core Areas In Study Area 162 Map 3-18 Elk and Moose Winter Range 172 Map 3-19 Mountain Sheep Range and Migration Routes 175 Map 3-20 Mountain Goat Range 177 Map B- Occurrence Potential for Skarn-Replacement Deposits B-9 1 Map B-2 Occurrence Potential for Porphyry Copper-Gold-Molybdenum B-10 Map B-3 Occurrence Potential for Polymetallic Veins B-1 Map B-4 Occurrence Potential for Alkaline Gabbro-Syenite- Hosted Copper-Gold-Silver- PGE Deposits B-l Map D-l Landscapes D-4 Map D-2 Soil Properties D-5 Map D-3 Vegetation D-6 rv LIST OF ACRONYMS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT Ag Gold AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act ARD Acid Rock Drainage ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act Au Silver BLM Bureau ofLand Management CCAMW Cooke City Area Mineral Withdrawal CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 CERCLIS CERCLA Information Systen (potential Superfund sites list) cfs Cubic Feet per Second CFR Code of Federal Regulations CNF Custer National Forest Cu Copper CWA Clean Water Act DEQ Department ofEnvironmental Quality DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DNRC Department ofNatural Resources and Conservation DSL Department ofState Lands EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPT Ephemeroptera Plecoptera Trichoptera ESA Endangered Species Act FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 FP Forest Plan FS Forest Service GIS Geographic Information System GNFFP Gallatin National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan GYA Greater Yellowstone Area HD Hunting District IDT Interdisciplinary Team km Kilometer kV Kilovolt KOP Key Observation Point LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan MA Management Area MABF Mean Annual Base Flow MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality MDFWP Montana Department ofFish, Wildlife and Parks MIIH May impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss ofviability MIS Management Indicator Species MO Molybednum MPDES Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System MSL Mean Sea Level MU Multiple Use NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFMA National Forest Management Act NFS National Forest System (lands) NHP National Heritage Program NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System v NPS National Park Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWM New World Mine NWMD New World Mining District NWP New World Project NYWR Northern Yellowstone Winter Range OHV OffHighway Vehicle Pb Paladium PDEIS Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement PGE Copper-gold-platinum group element PLO Public Land Order PSD Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration RA Roadless Area RPA Resource Planning Act RPA Resource Protection Act RVD Recreation Visitor Day SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SIL Scenic Integrity Level T&E Threatened and Endangered Species (federal) TDS Total Disolved Solids TMDL’s Total Maximum Daily Loads UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization use United States Code USDA United States Department ofAgriculture USDI United States Department ofthe Interior USFS United States Forest Service USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey VER Valid Existing Rights VQO Visual Quality Objective VI